|
Erik Rutins -> RE: Norm Koger's Distant Guns: Russo-Japanese War sets sail (5/20/2007 7:28:01 PM)
|
Allright, sorry to hijack this thread a bit again, but I'll throw in my $.02 on copy protection and such. This is not specific to SES or Distant Guns, but a phenomenon that covers the entire spectrum of game companies, titles and online stores.
I believe the folks at wargame companies using these e-licensing systems when they say that they intend to release their customers of them if they ever go under However, people do have a point that a company's destiny is not always its own when that happens. Still, these are generally privately owned independent companies so the most important thing comes down to whether you trust the word of those in charge. I generally trust them a lot more than I would a larger public company with much more separation from its customer base.
So, in general, I think it's fair to do so and I beleive in most cases where such a company might go out of business, they would have a chance to "unlock" previous purchases if they chose to do so and I think most would. In the case of games with ongoing value, I would also say there's a very good chance another company might assume the rights to that property and continue supporting it, which would hopefully also keep customers from being out in the cold without a working license. Nevertheless, in the end this is all based on trust and optimism.
Now, given the history of wargame companies, assuming that none of them will go under is a very bad bet to make. The history of wargaming is filled with many, many bankrupt or just abandoned companies. You have to assume that will continue, which is why sensible customers are concerned about the effects on their electronically licensed games, since their continued installation depends on the company's existence. That is the only real guarantee you have that you won't run into a problem in the future.
While I am not adamantly opposed to any licensing system and in fact have purchased a few electronically licensed titles, I also vastly prefer a system like the one we use, where there need not be any ongoing trust or optimism after the sale... since you own the game fully and can do with it what you want once you've paid for it, regardless of whether our company exists in ten years or not. With mainstream titles, you are generally not going to care one bit whether a game you bought even five years ago still works, but good wargames tend to have a longer life on most people's systems, so the concern beomes more significant. Therefore, I prefer the traditional way to "sell" something and I think it's still the most straightforward and customer-friendly.
I understand why other companies use such systems though - software piracy is real and unfortunately, wargamers do participate. I'm sure that some folks think that low sales may be partly due to piracy, whereas generally they're due to other issues with a title. I don't think there's good data to show that using such a system really results in any net gain in sales, while it certainly does alienate some customers and inconveniences (to some degree) those that honestly purchase your products. In fact, I've yet to see any kind of copy protection that isn't broken in short order and thus rendered pointless (though law abiding customers still have to deal with it). The upshot is that I think that trusting your paying customers builds a better relationship than inconveniencing them. Those who illegally copy a game were frankly, in my experience, unlikely to buy it anyway.
A customer-friendly system such as ours discourages casual piracy without inconveniencing customers and while recognizing that there is no current copy protection system that can really stop professional piracy. Even the most draconian systems that are actually usable for online distribution fall short of any real protection and cause plenty of customer annoyance. That's why we chose the route we took and plan to stick with it.
Regards,
- Erik
|
|
|
|
